The Wireless Fire Alarm System: Ensuring Conformance to Industrial Standards through Formal Verification

  • Sergio Feo-Arenis
  • Bernd Westphal
  • Daniel Dietsch
  • Marco Muñiz
  • Ahmad Siyar Andisha
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8442)


The design of distributed, safety critical real-time systems is challenging due to their high complexity, the potentially large number of components, and complicated requirements and environment assumptions. Our case study shows that despite those challenges, the automated formal verification of such systems is not only possible, but practicable even in the context of small to medium-sized enterprises. We considered a wireless fire alarm system and uncovered severe design flaws. For an improved design, we provided dependable verification results which in particular ensure that conformance tests for a relevant regulation standard will be passed. In general we observe that if system tests are specified by generalized test procedures, then verifying that a system will pass any test following these test procedures is a cost-efficient approach to improve product quality based on formal methods.


Radio Channel Time Division Multiple Access Central Unit Alarm System Conformance Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Alur, R., Dill, D.: A theory of timed automata. TCS 126(2), 183–235 (1994)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Behrmann, G., David, A., Larsen, K.G.: A tutorial on Uppaal. In: Bernardo, M., Corradini, F. (eds.) SFM-RT 2004. LNCS, vol. 3185, pp. 200–236. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhargavan, K., Obradovic, D., Gunter, C.A.: Formal verification of standards for distance vector routing protocols. J. ACM 49(4), 538–576 (2002)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaochen, Z., et al.: A calculus of durations. Inf. Proc. Lett. 40(5), 269–276 (1991)CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dietsch, D., Feo-Arenis, S., Westphal, B., et al.: Disambiguation of industrial standards through formalization and graphical languages. In: RE, pp. 265–270 (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DIN, E.V.: Fire detection and fire alarm systems; German version EN 54 (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dong, Y., Smolka, S.A., Stark, E.W., White, S.M.: Practical considerations in protocol verification: The e-2c case study. In: ICECCS, p. 153 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fehnker, A., van Glabbeek, R., Höfner, P., McIver, A., Portmann, M., Tan, W.L.: Automated analysis of AODV using UPPAAL. In: Flanagan, C., König, B. (eds.) TACAS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7214, pp. 173–187. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garcés, R., Garcia-Luna-Aceves, J.J.: Collision avoidance and resolution multiple access (CARMA). Cluster Computing 1(2), 197–212 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gebremichael, B., Vaandrager, F., Zhang, M.: Analysis of the Zeroconf protocol using Uppaal. In: EMSOFT, pp. 242–251. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Herrera, C., Westphal, B., Feo-Arenis, S., Muñiz, M., Podelski, A.: Reducing quasi-equal clocks in networks of timed automata. In: Jurdziński, M., Ničković, D. (eds.) FORMATS 2012. LNCS, vol. 7595, pp. 155–170. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Holzmann, G.J.: The model checker SPIN. IEEE TSE 23(5), 279–295 (1997)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jackson, D.: A Direct Path to Dependable Software. CACM 52(4), 78–88 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jubran, O., Westphal, B.: Formal approach to guard time optimization for TDMA. In: RTNS, pp. 223–233. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kamali, M., et al.: Self-recovering sensor-actor networks. In: Mousavi, M.R., Salaün, G. (eds.) FOCLASA. EPTCS, vol. 30, pp. 47–61 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kopetz, H., et al.: The time-triggered architecture. P. IEEE 91(1), 112–126 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Madl, G., et al.: Verifying distributed real-time properties of embedded systems via graph transformations and model checking. Real-Time Systems 33, 77–100 (2006)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olderog, E.R., Dierks, H.: Real-time systems. Cambridge University Press (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Osch, M., et al.: Finite-state analysis of the CAN bus protocol. In: HASE (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    RTCA: DO-333 Formal Methods Supplement to DO-178C and DO-278A (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tripakis, S., et al.: Implementing synchronous models on loosely time triggered architectures. IEEE Transactions on Computers 57, 1300–1314 (2008)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wibling, O., Parrow, J., Pears, A.: Automatized verification of ad hoc routing protocols. In: de Frutos-Escrig, D., Núñez, M. (eds.) FORTE 2004. LNCS, vol. 3235, pp. 343–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wong-Toi, H.: Symbolic Approximations for Verifying Real-Time Systems. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio Feo-Arenis
    • 1
  • Bernd Westphal
    • 1
  • Daniel Dietsch
    • 1
  • Marco Muñiz
    • 1
  • Ahmad Siyar Andisha
    • 1
  1. 1.Albert-Ludwigs-Universität FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations